We've come a long way from reconstructing the landing footage of CRS-3, haven't we?

Congratulations to SpaceX on their first DoD flight and for a spectacular depiction of how our robot overlords will soon invade us. I, for one, welcome more simulations.

Nice reminder... CRS-3 was April 18, 2014. Three years to go from seemingly impossible to routine!First half (1y8m) got us to first land landing -- now (1y4m later) a core has been reflown, a handful are scheduled this year, and landing is routine -- though not boring. Final upgrade of F9 is being fab'd to incorporate lessons learned.Brilliant test program.

Naysayers... any last words?(other than ULA's 'wet blanket/lost performance' comment yesterday at #ulcats)

All good except for the Elon TimeTM factor, if you look back at the interview after CRS-3, the plan was successful landing in 2014 and refly in 2015, so it took them twice as long to accomplish what they set out to do.

I don't think his original timeline included the two RUD's. If you took the resulting delays out, how close would his estimate have been?

...All good except for the Elon TimeTM factor, if you look back at the interview after CRS-3, the plan was successful landing in 2014 and refly in 2015, so it took them twice as long to accomplish what they set out to do.

I can't even imagine thinking that matters compared to the value of the actual accomplishments. SpaceX would not exist if Elon Musk was not a slightly insane optimist. It's a feature not a bug...

It reminds me of the Louis C.K. rant, " Everything Is Amazing And Nobody Is Happy."

All good except for the Elon TimeTM factor, if you look back at the interview after CRS-3, the plan was successful landing in 2014 and refly in 2015, so it took them twice as long to accomplish what they set out to do.

As opposed to, say, JWST schedule, or Constellation-nee-SLS schedule?Allow me to remind you that first manned Ares I launch was supposed to happen in 2014.

Don't get me wrong, I also would prefer than everything SpaceX plans to do always happens exactly as planned, no delays of any sort. But the reality of aerospace is that all future dates are only NET, and usually slip.

Naysayers... any last words?(other than ULA's 'wet blanket/lost performance' comment yesterday at #ulcats)

Technical naysayers should be shut up by now yes. Economical naysayers? Remains to be seen. I'm crossing all my appendages for it to work out financially as well, but we don't know yet.

There is a "naysayer roadmap" on the Internet for it

Falcon 1 is not provenContract with NASA is not provenFalcon 9 is not provenDragon is not provenISS resupply is not proven1st stage return is not provenBarge landing is not provenReuse is not proven=== You are here ===Falcon Heavy is not provenEconomy of reuse is not provenDragon 2 is not provenCrewed flights are not provenLunar flyby is not provenCapsule propulsive landing is not provenRed Dragon is not proven

I have the longest boostback, at 45 seconds or longer, taking place during the CRS-9 flight, during which the first stage returned to LZ 1. For some reason, a shorter 33 second burn was used for CRS-10, which also returned to LZ 1. Both of these flights had a 141 second first stage MECO.

Didn't CRS-10 have a much higher lofted trajectory than CRS-9? If so, less horizontal velocity and shorter distance to fly back. 2nd stage has to work a bit harder but as long as it has enough fuel, then that allows for a shorter burn for the boostback.

May require a longer re-entry burn due to heating issues (falling at a steeper angle, from higher altitude) if the heating level is a concern for multiple re-use or minimal refurbishment/parts replacement.

Took a quick look at Flight Club videos, MECO for CRS-9 seemed to be at about 58-58.5 km, CRS-10 at about 64 km. I'm sure much better detailed info is available, but that seems to confirm a higher lofted trajectory

Viewing it from the Fla west coast, it went up much higher than a normal launch.

All good except for the Elon TimeTM factor, if you look back at the interview after CRS-3, the plan was successful landing in 2014 and refly in 2015, so it took them twice as long to accomplish what they set out to do.

I don't think his original timeline included the two RUD's. If you took the resulting delays out, how close would his estimate have been?

From CRS-7 to RTF was 173 days. From Amos-6 to RTF was 133 days. Adds up to 306 days, almost exactly 10 months.

It's worth noting that no landing attempts with a chance of recovery happened in 2014, there were three "soft splashdowns" in the ocean. The first successful 1st stage recovery did happen in 2015, and it was the first launch after CRS-7. If not for Amos-6 I think it's reasonable to say we would have seen a reflown booster in 2016, it would probably still have been SES-10, late in the year.

"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Yup entirely correct. I'm optimistic it'll all be ticked off soon enough, but I'm still a scientist. It's not true until I've observed it!

As another scientist, it isn't 'true' when you observe it... quantum mechanics aside.You just have another data point that shows it has likely been true all along.

I think we have sufficient data to avoid the knee jerk naysaying that assumes it is false (instead of unknown to us) until proven otherwise. There aren't many data supporting this version of reuse being uneconomical (spreadsheets used to support your opinion are not data).

Yup entirely correct. I'm optimistic it'll all be ticked off soon enough, but I'm still a scientist. It's not true until I've observed it!

All timescales in the space industry as in many others in my view should be treated with the upmost scepticism when it comes to big projects.

And if we had followed the time table of the Apollo days, the first Mars landing would have been in the 1980's. So I'm also in the camp of hope it happens but don't expect it to happen as quickly as Elon states.

Yup entirely correct. I'm optimistic it'll all be ticked off soon enough, but I'm still a scientist. It's not true until I've observed it!

As another scientist, it isn't 'true' when you observe it... quantum mechanics aside.You just have another data point that shows it has likely been true all along.

I think we have sufficient data to avoid the knee jerk naysaying that assumes it is false (instead of unknown to us) until proven otherwise. There aren't many data supporting this version of reuse being uneconomical (spreadsheets used to support your opinion are not data).

There is data supporting both opinions, but it's proprietary to the private companies that operate the vehicles that are the source of the data.

Although Space-Track will never show orbits for the NROL 76 payload or its Falcon 9 second stage, it should list a "decay date" for the stage if and when it deorbits. As of today it does not show a decay date, but these updates have sometimes proven to lag reality by a day or days. Keeping an eye out.

Although Space-Track will never show orbits for the NROL 76 payload or its Falcon 9 second stage, it should list a "decay date" for the stage if and when it deorbits. As of today it does not show a decay date, but these updates have sometimes proven to lag reality by a day or days. Keeping an eye out.

- Ed Kyle

Is there any chance the second stage could still be alive and planning de-orbit burn?

Logged

"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

All good except for the Elon TimeTM factor, if you look back at the interview after CRS-3, the plan was successful landing in 2014 and refly in 2015, so it took them twice as long to accomplish what they set out to do.

Yeah, I agree that Elon Time is frustrating. He always is two years late to being ten years early.